Re: ocamlodbc packaging
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 01:16:06PM +0200, Georges Mariano wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> > Seriously talking, an uniform naming convention is really usefull, so
> > follow the existing one.
>
> The question is "is it really existing ??"
> (is it a "policy" question which needs to be "official" ?)
I think it don't really has an importance, especially for package whose
upstream name is not containing ocaml at all (like mlminidom, mlgtk, lablgl,
...)
Far better would be to have task packages, will try to make one for monday,
not sure though.
> Very usefull indeed ("apt-cache search ocaml" !!!! ;-)
apt-cache search caml is better, you miss a lot of them when searching for
ocaml.
> PS : there are currently a few packages with names like
> [o]caml<name>
> should we "suggest" to switch to
> [o]caml-<name> and
> [o]caml-lib<libname>
> ??
I think only ocamltk and ocamlweb seem in this category.
does ocaml-tk and ocaml-web sound better ?
mlminidom, mlgtk use the ml preposition.
should we rename them ocaml-minidom and ocaml-gtk ?
also what about the various labl stuff ? lablgl, lablgtk, ...
and camlp4, and standalone programs using ocaml, like coq or unison.
Anyway, i think we should conform to the ocaml-xxx naming scheme for new
libraries and bindings, letting standalone programs keep their upstream name
(to avoid confusion) and not mess with existing packages, i think package name
changes are not a nice thing to do in debian.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: